Former police chief: The ACLU is nothing but another (illegal?) fundraising arm of the Democratic Party – here’s the proof


The following may contain content which is editorial in nature and expresses the opinion of the writer.

WASHINGTON, DC- Perhaps those 87,000 new IRS agents may want to focus on the ACLU when they are unleashed to harass American taxpayers.

The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union for the uninformed) was conspicuously absent in 2020-2021 as Americans across the country were having their civil liberties eviscerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. They were evidently too busy skirting IRS regulations at the time.

According to the Washington Standard, the ACLU has been on a bit of a financial roll, increasing its net assets from $274 million in 2015 up to nearly three times that much, $748 million in 2021. So what was the secret to their financial windfall? Donald Trump.

In 2016, members contributed about $24 million, according to financial disclosures. As of 2021, that amount had swelled to over $138 million, with over $21 million coming from new contributors. Broken down, the ACLU made as much from new members alone in 2021 as hit had from all members in 2016.

According to Fortune Magazine:

“ACLU membership grew from 400,000 to 1.84 million in the 15 months following President Donald Trump’s election,” and while “the group’s online donations used to run between $3 to $5 million annually, but in the year after Trump took office, it raised $120 million online.”

The ACLU likes to claim it is “nonpartisan,” however the facts belie that statement. Just before the 2020 presidential election, the organization issued a press release in which it bragged that “ACLU supporters’ contributions represent between 20 and 30 percent of all Democratic fundraising.” Yup, pretty bipartisan there.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero, a veteran of the far-left-leaning Rockefeller and Ford Foundations said at the time that, “Vice President Biden boasted about breaking records for online political fundraising following the announcement of Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate, but the fact is that it’s ACLU supporters who are powering his election—providing one-fifth of all the money he’s raised thus far.”

Spoken like a proud papa there, Mr. Romero.

As we recently reported about a George Soros-related nonprofit engaging in political activity, this too seems to be a violation of 501(c)(3) IRS regulations banning nonprofits from engaging in political campaigns. Hence why some of those 87,000 agents should maybe take a look at the ACLU when they hit the streets. We won’t hold our breath.

The ACLU isn’t even trying to hide the fact that it’s playing kissy face with Biden and the Democrats. In a press release, the ACLU took credit for “powering” Biden’s campaign with cash, not including “$24 million of the $88 million” raised by the DNC, “$110 million—or 14.6 percent” of the money raised by “Democrat-leaning PACs” and “over $183 million to ActBlue, 24 percent of the total.”

Of course you may be wondering as are we…what does any of this have to do with civil rights? If you answered nothing you’re pretty darn close. As previously noted, over the past two years as Americans saw their civil liberties stomped on by overzealous political leaders while they themselves flouted those very same regulations, the ACLU was engaged in the “three monkeys scenario”—see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.” All you heard from the ACLU was crickets.

As the Washington Standard  noted, it wasn’t as much the ACLU “powering” Biden’s campaign but rather the other way around. “The ACLU has become just another arm of the Democrats and its leftist political vanguard.”

The ties between the ACLU and its abuse of the IRS tax codes has been examined by David Horowitz and John Perazzo, written in a pamphlet called Internal Radical Service from the David Horowitz Freedom Center. That pamphlet explores the abuses of the tax code “by radical nonprofits fueled by even more radical foundations like the Ford and Rockefeller foundations.”

Romero was formerly the head of the Ford Foundation’s Human Rights and International Cooperation Program, which evolved into Ford’s “largest grant-making unit.” Meanwhile Influence Watch noted that “The Ford Foundation had funded the ACLU Foundation…during Romero’s time with Ford.”

What a tangled web we weave.

The Standard also pointed out that Romero’s salary has also enjoyed quite a bump, going from around $300,000 in 2009 to $747,883 last year.

Meanwhile the ACLU earns about $250,000 annually renting out its list. It spends about $20 million on fundraising while allocating only a little over $2 million to “civil liberties policy formulation.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what the true mission of the ACLU is…a virtual money-laundering operation for the Democratic Party.

The ACLU through their podcast supported failed 2018 Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams and buys into her claim that she lost due to “voter suppression.” Wait, isn’t that illegal or an insurrection or something to mention that? Oh that’s right…that only counts if you’re a Republican.

In that same podcast, the ACLU conveniently failed to mention they had spent $800,000 on an ad campaign touting the dentally-challenged Abrams during the 2018 election. According to the Standard, “the ACLU Abrams ad was effectively indistinguishable from a campaign ad” while featuring “her name under banners such as “Stacey Abrams: Save $35 Million” and “Stacey Abrams: More Treatment.”

Meanwhile that same year, the ACLU dropped a bunch of money attacking Senate Republican candidates. The ACLU actually has a split personality, with the 501(c)(4) able to do so, however they also have the 501(c)(3) under the ACLU Foundation.

That split appears to be in name only however since both the ACLU and the ACLU Foundation have the same vice president and treasurer, Robert Remar, while both share another VP and general counsel. Romero meanwhile appears to be the head of both organizations.

How this works is the ACLU has a 501(c)(4) that campaigns for Democrats and a 501(c)(3) that sues on their behalf, the Washington Standard says.

They also note that “the ACLU hasn’t even bothered making any credible distinction between its left arm and its right arm.” The IRS meanwhile just looks the other way.

The ACLU has evolved into nothing more than the legal hit squad for the Democratic Party, having given up any illusion they are in fact an organization interested in the civil rights of all Americans. While the organization has had a leftward tilt for some time, that has become even more pronounced over the past 5-6 years.

All one has to do is look at the organization’s “Systemic Equality Agenda” launched last year and it is indistinguishable from far left Democrats.

“We are committed to using our nationwide network of litigators, advocates and supporters, the strongest ACLU we have ever known, to dismantle white supremacy,” Romero boasted.

So what was the ACLU pushing? Certainly not much to do with civil rights. They were pushing all the far-left agenda items, such as forgive student loan debt, do the Oprah Winfrey act on the internet, giving more child tax credits to encourage people not to work give reparations…for something and oh well…you get the point.

As the Standard writes:

“It’s become hard to tell apart the ACLU from other leftist and Democrat groups. It has no particular interest in free speech, instead it fights for whatever trending policy battle is in vogue, from black nationalism to boys playing on girls’ teams to illegal aliens to having the Post Office cash checks.”

And of course, it plays kissy face with Biden and the Democrats.

The ACLU may have started out with the best of intentions. Now? It’s nothing more than a shill money-laundering op for the Democrats under the guise of “protecting civil liberties.”

For our prior piece about the Soros-funded “non-profit” skirting IRS regulations, we invite you to:


The following may included content which is editorial in nature and which reflects the opinion of the writer. 

Maybe one of the new 87,000 IRS agents funded through the “Inflation Reduction Act” can handle this.

“This” is a group called the hilariously named Good Information Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that was started by none other than George Soros “to tackle the growing information crisis in America that is undermining social trust, harming public health, and damaging our democracy.”

Oh, what could possibly go wrong.

The group is apparently seeking to pay social media influencers to push anti-Trump propaganda related to the absurdly named “insurrection” of January 6, 2021, as a means to assist the Democratic Party to rule in perpetuity, in this case to assist them in the leadup to the November midterms.

According to one such influencer, Attorney Preston Moore who posts legal commentary on TikTok under the handle of @TrialByPreston, he was approached by a woman stating that she was from the Good Information Foundation and offered him money to post content reflecting ill on Trump, according to BizPacReview.

In the video which has since gone viral, Moore speaks of a woman who was identified as “Jane” who offered to pay him $400 if he created a January 6-related video that would support the false narrative being pushed by Democrats that Trump had encouraged supporters to attack the Capitol, which is blatantly false.

This of course would allow Democrats to continue weaponizing the federal government against supporters of Donald Trump.

“I was just offered $400 to make an anti-Donald Trump propaganda post related to the January 6 investigation that is completely not true,” Moore said.

“I should start out this video by saying that I’m not a Donald Trump supporter so that should give a little bit of context to where I’m coming from. I’m an attorney. I post legal news and analysis on related topics.”

Moore then related that he received an email from somebody with the Good Info Foundation, whom he referred to as “Jane.”

“Jane sent me a message letting me know she represented the Good Info Foundation and that she was willing go offer a paid collaboration to discuss some topics related to January 6,” he continued. “I said, sure, why not, I’ll learn some more.”

Moore continued that “Jane” said the foundation would give him $400 “to make a post on my page and then share it to Instagram.”

He then said there are “specific requirements in order to obtain that $400 of how I should refer to the January 6 Capitol raid,” he said in the video, showing what the requirements were.

“Number one, I must call this a criminal conspiracy. Number two, I must say Trump Republicans are responsible. Number three, I must frame it as an attack on my country, an attack on America or Americans, a criminal conspiracy and a committed crime,” he said, which described the very specific language this “truth telling” organization was soliciting.

Continuing, he said, “I must attribute the matter to MAGA Republicans [straight out of the Biden playbook], I must make clear that this was ongoing and unresolved, and most importantly, that I must channel all of this onto the manipulation of voter agency so that I can turn their anger around this event into defiance that would make people more likely to vote in [the] midterms,” Moore continued.

Moreover, he was to make the connection “that the Trump campaign paid literally millions of dollars to make January 6 happen,” an allegation that has not yet been even raised by the January 6 Pelosi inquisition hit squad.

It was that last allegation that caught Moore’s rapt attention, and he questioned “Jane” about it. He asked her what the basis was for that claim that the Trump campaign had paid millions of dollars to fund the January 6 Capitol breach.

“’Jane doesn’t answer the question,” instead telling him, ‘Hi Preston, if you don’t want to state that in the video it’s fine. You don’t have to use all the bullet points provided.’”

Moore however continued to press, asking if there was any support for that claim. Again, “Jane” refused to answer.

“’ Let me know if you are interested and the rate works for you, thanks so much.’”

You see, “Jane” refused to answer the question precisely because there is zero support for the claim that the Trump campaign paid anyone for participation in January 6.

“I’m not interested and the rate doesn’t work for me,” Moore continued. “This is the Good Info Foundation. They boast on their homepage that ‘good information is the lifeblood of a democracy.‘ They further cry that ‘we are in an information crisis’ and you know the crazy thing about all of that? They’re right.”

From the group’s website:

“America is in an information crisis. Disinformation is threatening public health, safety, social trust and democracy.”

They then cite statistics about the numbers of people believe the 2020 election was stolen, believe voter fraud is a major problem, don’t trust the “traditional” media and claims 265 million Americans can’t name their state legislators. We would leverage that final statistic is largely incorporated of gender studies majors from Berkeley and other liberal hell holes.

The implication of course is that the average Trump voter is a conspiracy nut who believes there is a problem with our election system and oh yeah, they don’t trust the mainstream leftist state-run media. Oh, and to insinuate that 265 million Americans can’t name their legislators, again the implication is that Trump supporters are a bunch of hayseeds.

According to Axios, the organization is backed by Soros and another billionaire Reid Hoffman and will be led by a woman named Tara McGowan, a former Democratic strategist who at one time ran a progressive nonprofit called ACRONYM.

That organization “ran one of the largest digital campaigns to defeat President Trump in the 2020 election, totaling $100 million.” One of the companies it is invested in, Shadow, was responsible for the delayed reporting of the Iowa caucus results in 2020.

If anyone wonders why LinkedIn appears to be leaning a bit to the left and has engaged in censoring conservatives, including Law Enforcement Today, our founder Robert Greenberg and our National Director Kyle Reyes, Hoffman is the founder of LinkedIn.

One or more of these 87,000 new IRS employees might want to take a look at the Good Information Foundation’s 501(c)(3) status as a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization. From the IRS Code:

“Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.” [emphasis added]

It continues:

“…voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute a prohibited participation or intervention.”

Wow! Sounds like the old Good Information Foundation appears to be operating in violation of the IRS Code as a “tax-exempt nonprofit.” We’ll wait to see the IRS pull their tax exempt status with bated breath.

For more on the IRS, we invite you to read a prior piece:


WASHINGTON, DC- Rest easy…Democrats say that people (Republicans) have nothing to fear over the new 87,000 IRS employees funded under the bizarrely named “Inflation Reduction Act.” After all, they’re just after “millionaires and billionaires.”

Clearly there is nothing to worry about, given the person named to lead the new “centralized office” where most of those 87,000 would work was also heavily involved when the agency targeted conservative groups who opposed Obama’s 2012 reelection, in particular the Tea Party.

That woman, Nikole Flax was the chief of staff for the then-commissioner of the IRS, Stephen Miller who was fired when there was an attempt to cover up the scandal.

In a bit of cat-and-mouse reminiscent of Hillary Clinton’s mysterious disappearing of tens of thousands of emails, Flax’s emails were claimed to be “lost” in a computer hard-drive crash when they were subpoenaed by Congressional Republicans. Just a coincidence, of course.

That led Republican lawmakers to assert that the IRS was attempting to “cover up the fact that it conveniently lost key documents in the investigation.”

Last week, the Daily Signal reported that IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig told employees in an email that the agency was establishing a “new, centralized office” which would be charged with implementing certain portions of the bill, which would include the nearly 87,000 new IRS agents.

The hyper-partisan bill, which passed strictly along party lines without a single Republican vote, directs $80 billion to the IRS, which would be mostly used to pay for the new agents through 2031.

In that email, Rettig said that Flax, currently serving as deputy commissioner in charge of the Large Business & International Division will be in charge of the centralized office.

“We have a unique, once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform the IRS in a way to help taxpayers and fundamentally improve our tax administration work that is vital to the success of our country,” Flax said in the memo from Rettig.

“This is an exciting opportunity, and we will be moving quickly with our work.”

Relative to the scandal in 2012, the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration issued a scathing report in 2014 where he concluded that the IRS had delayed the processing of applications for tax-exempt status by conservative groups, while demanding private information that was deemed unnecessary.

A two-year investigation concluded in October 2015 which didn’t lead to charges being brought against Lois Lerner, head of the Exempt Organizations Division.

The IRS claimed at the time that Lerner’s computer crashed at about the same time as six other employees. It was truly a “complete coincidence”…nothing to see here. Of course the other six employees were involved in targeting conservative groups, noted Jeff Bergner, a former federal employee in the executive branches said in a July 2014 column for the Virginian-Pilot.

“Each of these six other employees played a role in targeting tea party groups,” he wrote at the time. “Try that selective loss of records at your next audit.”

Bergner also highlighted the fact that Flax had visited the Obama White House 31 times during the period when the conservative groups were targeted between 2010 and 2012.

For more on the 87,000 member Biden Stasi, we invite you to:


WASHINGTON, D.C. – Democrat Joe Biden promised to increase the law enforcement ranks of the Internal Revenue Service so that he and his party can rake in more tax revenues.

His increase in law enforcement agents for the tax collection service makes it the largest increase of police officers in the country.

President Biden promised that he would be raising more tax revenues and that one of the ways he would do it was to increase the IRS budget, which is designed to beef up the number of law enforcement agents the federal agency has at its disposal by 87,000.

Proponents of the new funding claim that it is long overdue and is designed to capture those who are cheating current tax laws.

Proponents of the bill also claim that the additional funding will only go towards extra looks at those in the country that are making over $400,000 a year.

Something that White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre vowed during a press conference and which was echoed by IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig in a letter:

“These resources are absolutely not about increasing audit scrutiny on small businesses or middle-income Americans.

As we have been planning, our investment of these enforcement resources is designed around Treasury’s directive that audit rates will not rise relative to recent years for households making under $400,000.”

A promise that Republican lawmakers and others who opposed the significant increase think will fall flat.

According to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, those who are making under $25,000 a year are five times as likely to be audited as anyone else with a higher level of income.

TRAC reports the reason why those numbers are so high is because of “correspondence audits” which means IRS agents review tax returns through letters or phone calls other than doing a face-to-face audit.

The Syracuse study reported over half of the correspondence audits conducted by the IRS last year were not those who are making $400,000 or more a year, rather 54% were done on those making under $25,000.

Beyond those statistics from Syracuse, others fear the additional IRS agents will be “weaponized” against Republicans and conservatives alike. Suzanne Guggenheim, the co-founder of the Texas Tea Party Patriots PAC, said:

“Knowing how weaponized the IRS interest has been and still is, it’s easy to imagine what it’s going to become once they double the number of agents…everybody will suffer.

The country suffers, the businesses suffer and every single citizen.”

In speaking of weaponizing the IRS, Guggenheim is referring to the 2013 investigation of the federal tax agency which showed that conservative organizations were ‘targeted’ when they sought tax-exempt status at a much higher rate than those of progressive groups.

Those who applied for tax-exempt status with words like “tea party” or “patriot” were automatically chosen for additional scrutiny. Guggenheim said:

“The Tea Party groups were unfairly targeted. A few bad apples have a lot of consequences when they go unpunished. It takes away a lot of your possibilities to raise funds and to do the job you’re trying to do. To compete with your opponents you need to have the means to do that.”

Guggenheim believes the additional IRS agents will be used by the Biden Administration to target conservative groups much like the Obama Administration was accused of doing in 2013. She said:

“We have seen already as through those last few years how they have come after the conservatives, how they have come after President Trump and anybody who in any way was linked to him, even just by supporting him.

We certainly do fear that our groups that continue to express their support will be targeted.”

Laws need not apply: Lawyers say FBI raid at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate was “improperly intrusive”

The following includes editorial content which is the opinion of the writer. 

PALM BEACH, FL- For anyone who paid attention to the raid (that’s exactly what it was) on the Florida home of former President Trump this week especially those with a law enforcement background, something just didn’t seem right. And that feeling is shared by a number of individuals, both in and out of law enforcement.

While some partisan hack attorneys such as slip-and-fall lawyer Marc Elias see nothing wrong with the FBI’s conduct, a number of lawyers are speaking out and condemning the once-great agency, now turned into the enforcement arm of the tyrannical Biden administration.

The Epoch Times reports several attorneys have labeled the search of Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach Monday as “improperly intrusive.”

Upon learning of the raid, both Mr. Trump as well as a number of Republicans slammed the Department of Justice and the Biden administration for an unprecedented breach of protocol, not to mention spitting on the Constitution.

The raid has further fomented partisan tensions in the country, already fraught after five years of attacks from the unhinged left.

On Monday, Aug 8, an estimated 20-30 gestapo (FBI) entered Trump’s residence at about 9:00 a.m., remaining on the premises for about 10 hours and leaving with “a handful of boxes of documents,” according to Christina Bobb, a Trump attorney who was on scene and witnessed the raid. Moreover, agents refused…yes refused…to allow Trump’s attorney(s) to stay on scene, Bobb told The Epoch Times.

“I didn’t actually get to oversee the search, they wouldn’t let anybody see what they were doing,” she said.

There are also reports that the FBI refused to provide a copy of the warrant, which is legally required.

It is unknown what the legal basis for the warrant secured by the FBI was, but one area of interest is the fact it did not appear to have been signed by a federal judge.

Instead, it was signed by a magistrate judge who reports say was a supporter of Barack Obama, donated to Jeb Bush’s campaign against Trump in 2016, and has made a number of derogatory social media posts about Trump in the past. Having such a high-profile warrant signed by a low-level judge is extremely unusual, experts say. More on him below.

Bobb said that while it wasn’t specified what Biden’s jackboots were looking for, Bobb said they were looking for “what they deemed to be presidential records,” while adding, “I don’t think there was anything of substance.”

She added that the former president’s legal team will take steps to obtain the affidavit.

The raid apparently stems from a dispute whereby the former president has been negotiating with the National Archives over documents he may possess that they say should be stored at the archives under the U.S. Presidential Records Act. Using that as a predicate to raid Trump’s residence is absurd. Especially since he has been attempting to negotiate with them over the documents they want released.

Bobb highlighted the former president’s cooperation with the Archives and had previously invited the FBI to his residence to examine the records he had in storage at the time. In other words, there was no need for the FBI to make a show out of this. Yet they did.

“Nothing had been hidden, and nothing has been kept secret from them, which makes this all the more ridiculous,” she said.

Fox News reported that former FBI assistant director Chris Swecker, appearing with guest host Charles Paine on “Your World With Neil Cavuto,” told the host that guidelines governing how the FBI is supposed to conduct such raids were completely “pushed aside.”

Just as with the Jan. 6 committee, this was all about optics. Just like when the FBI had armed agents storm the house of Trump confidante Roger Stone in a pre-dawn raid, after of course tipping off state-media CNN.

Marc Ruskin, a 27-year FBI veteran and former federal prosecutor said he was “stunned and dismayed,” The Epoch Times reported.

“The disregard for traditional norms and apparent lack of concern with the appearance of impropriety is indicative of an abandonment of even a veneer of independence and objectivity.”

And that wasn’t the worst criticism of the once-proud FBI, with former federal prosecutor Mike Davis suggesting the raid may have been illegally invasive.

“Under the case law, you can’t do a home raid if you can secure the documents through less intrusive means,” he told Bannon’s War Room earlier this week.

Davis noted that prior to carrying out such a raid, the FBI would have had to make the determination that requests for the information sought wouldn’t have been sufficient said the former adviser to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on judicial nominations, now the head of The Article III Project.

“There’s zero evidence,” he said that the former president would not cooperate.

“There was no allegation or evidence that he [Trump] was destroying any of this evidence or putting it into the wrong hands. This is banana republic-level tactics from the Biden Justice Department.”

Davis further said that even if the former president had taken classified documents, since he took possession of them when he was still president he had the authority to declassify them.

Bobb said the claim of documents being “classified” was intended to give the veneer of “shrouding this in a national security blanket.”

“They don’t want to disclose what they’re doing because what they’re doing is wrong. And so they want to hide it behind the premise of ‘Ohi it’s a matter of national security and classified documents, so we can’t disclose to you what we’re doing or why we’re doing it. But just trust us. We’re not lying to you,’” Bobb said. “Well, no the American people aren’t going to stand for that anymore.”

Bobb also said that any intent by the DOJ to criminally charge Mr. Trump wouldn’t hold up, since the statute dealing with the withholding of documents requires a “willful” velation and “malicious intent” to take specific documents. Given his previous cooperation with the FBI and inviting them to his home, that would seem to take “willful” and “malicious intent” out of the equation.

“They would have to lay the foundation that Donald Trump actually packed up his own office,” or ordered somebody what specifically to take,” she continued.

Removal of official documents is nothing new, since a number of former government officials have done the exact same thing, with no action being taken against them.

Some of the most notable actually include the former FBI Director, James Comey, who removed handwritten notes when he was fired by President Trump in 2017. So his home was raided by jack-booted FBI agents, correct? Nope…he merely handed the notes back to the agents who came to his home to interview him.

When the Obama administration left office, tens of thousands of documents went missing or were destroyed. Again, nobody’s home was raided.

Then there is Crooked Hillary. She destroyed tens of thousands of emails that were subject to a congressional subpoena and used something called “Bleach Bit” to scrub her personal server, which she had classified documents residing on. She claimed they were “personal.”

In fact, the FBI was able to retrieve some of the scrubbed emails and they were nowhere near “personal.” Most were work-related.

When word came out (by Trump himself, by the way) of the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, most clear-thinking people immediately became skeptical of the (un)official story coming out of the DOJ.

And it was easy to have doubts, especially since the FBI and DOJ have had a history over the past five-plus years of using, shall we say “questionable” methods when it comes to the former president, including breaking protocol, lying and forging evidence.

Anything the FBI or DOJ claim when it comes to Trump has to be taken with a great deal of cynicism.

“After six years of unfounded, absurd investigations of President Trump, the presumption is that any investigation of President Trump is politically motivated, and the burden of proof is on FBI/DOJ to prove otherwise,” Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at the Internet Accountability Project, wrote in an Aug. 9 Twitter post.


For example in 2017, the FBI and DOJ received two extensions on a spying warrant on Carter Page, former Trump campaign aide. This was done despite the fact it was based on “false or unsubstantiated allegations,” The Epoch Times reported.

The FBI later admitted spying based on the extensions was illegal. However it didn’t stop them from doing it.

The FBI has also famously used associates of Trump as “show” pawns, conducting early morning raids such as the aforementioned one on Stone, taking Trump confidante Peter Navarro into custody at Washington-Reagan National Airport, perp-walking, handcuffing, arrested at gunpoint, and having homes and offices raided like they were the equivalent of a heavily armed Mexican drug cartel. This occurred even with cooperating “suspects.”

The raid at Trump’s home for some creates a very “dangerous precedent,” a feeling shared by Davis.

“They’re setting a very dangerous precedent where you can do a home raid of a former president of the United States,” he said, while highlighting the fact this has never before happened “in our 250 years as a Republic.”

The raid has also fired up Congressional Republicans, who have vowed to put the FBI and DOJ under the microscope if they gain the majority in November’s mid-terms.

“When Republicans take back the House, we will conduct immediate oversight of this department, follow the facts, and leave no stone unturned,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said in a statement. “Attorney General Garland: preserve your documents and clear your calendar.”

The FBI’s action has also fired up the Republican base, now energized to get Democrats out of power in order to get control of the government back in some form. Some believe conducting the raid in this manner is a deliberate attempt to provoke another January 6 type incident…with that in mind, be aware of a possible false flag operation by the feds.

Kind of what they are alleged to have done on January 6, where it is alleged that embedded federal agents assisted in provoking the crowd. There is also the case of the “kidnapping” plot on Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, where some defendants claim it was undercover FBI agents and informants who actually helped further the alleged scheme.

The Magistrate Judge who approved the search warrant, Bruce Reinhart was involved first as a senior prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, where he reached a “non-prosecution agreement with underage sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

Once leaving office, Reinhart “switched teams” and actually represented a number of Epstein associates and employees in civil cases filed by Epstein’s victims. In other words, he’s a scumbag.

Finally, the timing of the warrant came only days after FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and was hammered by Republicans over the politicization of the agency, which came forth from a number of whistleblowers.

Wray, a slimeball in the mold of James Comey, claimed he had to cut his appearance short because he had “a plane to catch.”

The dirty little secret was Wray wasn’t flying commercial, but was instead flying on his private FBI jet to his vacation home in the New York Adirondacks. That piece of information was provided by Miranda Devine of the New York Post.

“What you’re supposed to do when you possess these types of powers that the FBI does and Justice Department does is use the least intrusive investigative technique to get to what you need to get to, [whether] it’s information, evidence what have you,” Swecker said.

“You’re supposed to take into consideration the seriousness of the offense, and the impact on public confidence in the FBI and law enforcement in general. These are codified in the domestic investigative operation guidelines, and the attorney general guidelines.”

Swecker, appearing stunned by the FBI’s actions, said all of those guidelines were “completely…just shifted aside, just pushed aside.”

He continued, noting the overreach and apparent show the agency put on in conducting the raid.

“And this dramatic raid takes place over a fairly de minimis offense. Police lights flashing, dawn raid, kitted out ninja warriors outside, 20 agents inside.”

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First
Submit a Correction
Related Posts